Implementation of Change in Organizations

¶ … change is even started, it has to be figured out what needs to change, why it needs to change and how best to go about it. Part of all that would be defining the desired outcome and end-result that should come to pass. Something else that should precede actual change implementation is getting the right resources, funds and people involved. If there are more than a few people involved, this means getting buy-in from those people.

As far as implementing the change itself, there needs to be a plan and it needs to be followed. The overall shape and scope of the plan needs to be followed to the letter. This means not leaving things out and it especially means not adding in additional things unless a scope/plan change is called for or required. Another important thing is that there needs to be one person that if firmly in charge. Certainly, there should be discussion amongst all stakeholders involved.

However, the person ultimately in charge should make all final decisions and the people under that person need to follow that person's direction. This would presumably be a project leader and that leader needs to be backed up by the people with the purse string and/or those that ordered the change. As the change is being implemented, there should be a constant and consistent comparison to what the plan is to ensure compliance and consistency between the two.

If changes are needed, then that should be discussed and dealt with. If changes are made as things go along, the plan should be adjusted to reflect the change as well as any timelines, dependencies and so forth. Not holding to these practices could lead to the project being late, beyond its budget or both. Response to First Student What you seem to be describing is "buy-in"…and that is absolutely important.

Indeed, if you have front-line employees or even managers that are not on-board with the change, then there are going to be problems. One model that I've run into a lot is the "Kotter" model for leading change. There are actually eight steps and one of the main ones (it's the second on the list) is the building of a guiding coalition.

Of course, if the management of a firm is not on board with the change, this will give the lower employees little to no reason to take the change seriously and this would mean they may or may not embrace the change. The change management team has to have the support of higher management. This support must be obvious and vocal or there is a chance the change will not be listened to (Kotter, 2015). Kotter. (2015). The 8-Step Process for Leading Change - Kotter International. Kotter International.

Retrieved 1 July 2015, from http://www.kotterinternational.com/the-8-step-process-for-leading-change/ Response to Second Student I completely see what you are saying about the types of change. Too often, it seems that organizations are more reactionary than they should be. Even when they have the opportunity to be more proactive and in charge of their future, they sometimes dawdle and/or make changes that are half (or less) of what they need to be. There is that tendency of many firms to only react when there are glaring and major problems.

For example, a.